' Brief facts out of which_ the present revision petition arises are that the agreement to sell was executed between the husband of present petitioner namely Karam Din and respondent Rana Zaheer-ud-Din for consideration of Rs,35,000. Karam Din received Rs,30,000 and remaining had to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Karam Din did not ready to execute the sale- deed in favour of respondent Rana Zaheer-ud-Din who filed a suit for Specific Performance before the Civil Judge, Kasur in the year 1982, Civil Judge, Kasur vide judgment and decree decreed the suit, Karam Din being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the District Judge, Kasur who entrusted the saute to Additional District Judge, Kasur. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 13-1-1987. Karam Din being aggrieved filed revision petition before this Court which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 2-2-1992. Subsequently, Karam Din did not agitate the matter before the Mantle Supreme Court. Present respondent No,1 filed execution petition before the trial Court.
Present petitioner filed objection petition as well as application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On the ground that her husband Karam Din gifted property in question through gift deed dated 30-12- 1975. The trial Court dismis',ed the objection petition as well as application under section 12(2), C.P,C, vide judgment and decree, dated 18-7-1993. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge, Kasur who entrusted the same to the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 30-10-1994.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On the ground that the gift deed was not registered. He further stated that it is not the requirement of law that gift deed must be registered. He relied upon PLD 1975 Lah. 1399 and 1977 SCMR 154. He further stated that both the Courts below dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P:C. Without framing the issues. Therefore, judgment of both the Courts below is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. He relied upon 1993.. SCMR 662 and 1997 SCMR 1382.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that it is admitted fact that suit was filed in the year 1982 which was finalised by the judgment of this Court vide order, dated 2-2-1992. Petitioner did not enter appearance during this period. He further stated that the application is mala fide, therefore, both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the same without framing the issues. He also relied upon the following judgments:- (i)1997 CLC (ii)"1774, 1993 (iii)CLC 1336. 1990 CL 366, He further stated that both the Courts below concurrently decided against the petitioner and this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of fact while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court which is to the following effect:-- "It is not incumbent upon a Court where application under section 12(2). C.P.C. Is filed in each case to frame issues because it depends upon the nature of allegations levelled in the application and, therefore, in the instant case argument that it was necessary for the learned executing Court to frame issues falls to the ground because the learned executing Court did not feel satisfied on the allegation made in the application to frame issues and I also do not find myself in disagreement with the said finding. Reference in this regard can also be made to 1990 CLC 366. The documents of Excise and Taxation Department relied upon by the appellant also do not in spite confidence which start from 1984-85 and the manoeuvring of saw documents cannot be ruled Similarly the document on the basis of which the appellant claims title does not create or transfer any right in favour of the appellant. The application filed by the is an attempt to defeat the decree and its fruit to the respondent No,1, Appeal is without merit and therefore, dismissed."
' The admitted facts between the parties are reproduced hereunder in cronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(i) 29-10-1981.
' Agreement to sell between the petitioner's husband and respondent.
(ii) Respondent filed a suit for specific performance.
(iii) 18-7-1984. Suit decreed.
(iv) 1984. Petitioner's husband filed appeal.
(v) 13-1-1987. Appeal dismissed.
(vi) 1987, Petitioner's husband filed revision before this Court.
(vii) 2-2-1992. .
(viii) 1992. Respondent No, I filed execution petition.
(ix) 28-4-1993 Petitioner filed objection petition and application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
' The aforesaid facts clearly reveal that petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
After 11 years on the basis of oral gift, dated 30-12-1975.
' It is, however, to be kept in mind that generally provisions of section 2(Z), C.P.C. Are invoked by an successful litigant as a last resort, and it is not obligatory for the Court to give to such move 'treatment' Of a civil suit and embark upon determination of controversy involved, all over afresh.
Bona fides of the applicant and apparent soundness of his averments have to be examined preliminarily by the Court and if it does not find itself persuaded to believe what is being pleaded by the petitioner, it may refuse to proceed further, since a detailed inquiry to be undertaken in the manner of a civil action, which is likely to stretch over years, may amount to subjugation to crafty designs of a clever litigant, that may bring in its wake frustration to the decree-holder or the rightful claimant. In the present case, the petitioner's plea is not just restricted to the allegation that the proceedings had been conducted, to his absolute ignorance; what he maintains is that her husband and respondent No,1 had acted in active connivance with each other to keep her in complete dark. However, if that in fact had been the case, the litigation would not have consumed so many years. Application of the petitioner does not reveal that the relationship of the petitioner and her husband became strained. Both the Courts below after proper scrutiny of the application exercised their discretion that the application is filed by the petitioner malafidely to frustrate the decree of the Court. I am, therefore, of the clear view that if the Court comes to the finding that an application under section 12(2), C.?.C. Is improper, mala fide and has been made only to protract the proceedings and to abuse the process of the Court, the Court, can dismiss the same summarily without framing any issue or recording any evidence. To hold that the Court should frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. Even before dismissing it would amount to give a licence to Unscrupulous litigants to protract the proceedings and perpetuate their unlawful possession and to see that there is no end to the proceedings. I am fortified by the following judgments:-
(i) PLD 1994 Kar. 319 (Mian Abdul Qayyum's case),
(ii) 1993 SCMR 662 (Ohulam Muhammad's case),
(iii) 1997 CLC 1774 (Zahid Bashir's case).
(iv) 1993 CLC 1024 (Farooq Ahmad's case).
(v) Petitioner remained silent till the controversy has been finally decided up to the High Court and that the respondent filed an application for execution of the decree after 11 years. Therefore, application is also liable to be dismissed as time-barred. I am fortified by the following judgments:-
(i) 1992 CLC 1958 (Kahlil Ahmad's case).
(ii) 1991 SCMR 1028 (Saba Khatoon's case).
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality and material irregularity 'committed by both the Courts below.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition has no force and the same is dismissed.